Search

BackgroundTest-negative design (TND) studies have produced validated estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) for influenza vaccine studies. However, syndrome-negative controls have been proposed for differentiating bias and true estimates in VE evaluations for COVID-19. To understand the use of alternative control groups, we compared characteristics and VE estimates of syndrome-negative and test-negative VE controls.MethodsAdults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in 18 states March 11-August 31, 2021 were eligible for analysis. Case patients had symptomatic acute respiratory infection (ARI) and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Control groups were test-negative patients with ARI but negative SARS-CoV-2 testing, and syndrome-negative controls were without ARI and negative SARS-CoV-2 testing. Chi square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to detect differences in baseline characteristics. VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated using logistic regression comparing adjusted odds of prior mRNA vaccination between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and each control group.Results5811 adults (2726 cases, 1696 test-negative controls, and 1389 syndrome-negative controls) were included. Control groups differed across characteristics including age, race/ethnicity, employment, previous hospitalizations, medical conditions, and immunosuppression. However, control-group-specific VE estimates were very similar. Among immunocompetent patients aged 18-64years, VE was 93% (95% CI: 90-94) using syndrome-negative controls and 91% (95% CI: 88-93) using test-negative controls.ConclusionsDespite demographic and clinical differences between control groups, the use of either control group produced similar VE estimates across age groups and immunosuppression status. These findings support the use of test-negative controls and increase confidence in COVID-19 VE estimates produced by test-negative design studies.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529 or BA.1) became predominant in the United States by late December 2021 (1). BA.1 has since been replaced by emerging lineages BA.2 (including BA.2.12.1) in March 2022, followed by BA.4 and BA.5, which have accounted for a majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections since late June 2022 (1). Data on the effectiveness of monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against BA.4/BA.5-associated hospitalizations are limited, and their interpretation is complicated by waning of vaccine-induced immunity (2-5). Further, infections with earlier Omicron lineages, including BA.1 and BA.2, reduce vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates because certain persons in the referent unvaccinated group have protection from infection-induced immunity. The IVY Network

During the COVID-19 pandemic, self-reported COVID-19 vaccination might facilitate rapid evaluations of vaccine effectiveness (VE) when source documentation (e.g., immunization information systems [IIS]) is not readily available. We evaluated the concordance of COVID-19 vaccination status ascertained by self-report versus source documentation and its impact on VE estimates.Hospitalized adults (≥18 years) admitted to 18 U.S. medical centers March-June 2021 were enrolled, including COVID-19 cases and SARS-CoV-2 negative controls. Patients were interviewed about COVID-19 vaccination. Abstractors simultaneously searched IIS, medical records, and other sources for vaccination information. To compare vaccination status by self-report and documentation, we estimated percent agreement and unweighted kappa with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We then calculated VE in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization of full vaccination (2 doses of mRNA product ≥14 days prior to illness onset) independently using data from self-report or source documentation.Of 2520 patients, 594 (24%) did not have self-reported vaccination information to assign vaccination group; these patients tended to be more severely ill. Among 1924 patients with both self-report and source documentation information, 95.0% (95% CI: 93.9-95.9%) agreement was observed, with a kappa of 0.9127 (95% CI: 0.9109-0.9145). VE was 86% (95% CI: 81-90%) by self-report data only and 85% (95% CI: 81-89%) by source documentation data only.Approximately one-quarter of hospitalized patients could not provide self-report COVID-19 vaccination status. Among patients with self-report information, there was high concordance with source documented status. Self-report may be a reasonable source of COVID-19 vaccination information for timely VE assessment for public health action.

Background . Adults in the United States (US) began receiving the adenovirus vector coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson [Janssen]), in February 2021. We evaluated Ad26.COV2.S vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization and high disease severity during the first 10 months of its use. Methods . In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults (≥18 years) hospitalized 11 March to 15 December 2021, we estimated VE against susceptibility to COVID-19 hospitalization (VEs), comparing odds of prior vaccination with a single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine between hospitalized cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated VE against disease progression (VEp) to death or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), comparing odds of prior vaccination between patients with and without progression. Results . After excluding patients receiving mRNA vaccines, among 3979 COVID-19 case-patients (5% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S) and 2229 controls (13% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S), VEs of Ad26.COV2.S against COVID-19 hospitalization was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63–75%) overall, including 55% (29–72%) among immunocompromised patients, and 72% (64–77%) among immunocompetent patients, for whom VEs was similar at 14–90 days (73% [59–82%]), 91–180 days (71% [60–80%]), and 181–274 days (70% [54–81%]) postvaccination. Among hospitalized COVID-19 case-patients, VEp was 46% (18–65%) among immunocompetent patients. Conclusions . The Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization by 72% among immunocompetent adults without waning through 6 months postvaccination. After hospitalization for COVID-19, vaccinated immunocompetent patients were less likely to require IMV or die compared to unvaccinated immunocompetent patients.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome. Understanding of the complex pathways involved in lung injury pathogenesis, resolution, and repair has grown considerably in recent decades. Nevertheless, to date, only therapies targeting ventilation-induced lung injury have consistently proven beneficial, and despite these gains, ARDS morbidity and mortality remain high. Many candidate therapies with promise in preclinical studies have been ineffective in human trials, probably at least in part due to clinical and biological heterogeneity that modifies treatment responsiveness in human ARDS. A precision medicine approach to ARDS seeks to better account for this heterogeneity by matching therapies to subgroups of patients that are anticipated to be most likely to benefit, which initially might be identified in part by assessing for heterogeneity of treatment effect in clinical trials. In October 2019, the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a workshop of multidisciplinary experts to explore research opportunities and challenges for accelerating precision medicine in ARDS. Topics of discussion included the rationale and challenges for a precision medicine approach in ARDS, the roles of preclinical ARDS models in precision medicine, essential features of cohort studies to advance precision medicine, and novel approaches to clinical trials to support development and validation of a precision medicine strategy. In this Position Paper, we summarise workshop discussions, recommendations, and unresolved questions for advancing precision medicine in ARDS. Although the workshop took place before the COVID-19 pandemic began, the pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for precision therapies for ARDS as the global scientific community grapples with many of the key concepts, innovations, and challenges discussed at this workshop.

Background Although specific interventions previously demonstrated benefit in patients with ARDS, use of these interventions is inconsistent, and patient mortality remains high. The impact of variability in center management practices on ARDS mortality rates remains unknown. Research Question What is the impact of treatment variability on mortality in patients with moderate to severe ARDS in the United States? Study Design and Methods We conducted a multicenter, observational cohort study of mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS and Pa o 2 to F io 2 ratio of ≤ 150 with positive end-expiratory pressure of ≥ 5 cm H2O, who were admitted to 29 US centers between October 1, 2016, and April 30, 2017. The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Center variation in ventilator management, adjunctive therapy use, and mortality also were assessed. Results A total of 2,466 patients were enrolled. Median baseline Pa o 2 to F io 2 ratio was 105 (interquartile range, 78.0-129.0). In-hospital 28-day mortality was 40.7%. Initial adherence to lung protective ventilation (LPV; tidal volume, ≤ 6.5 mL/kg predicted body weight; plateau pressure, or when unavailable, peak inspiratory pressure, ≤ 30 mm H2O) was 31.4% and varied between centers (0%-65%), as did rates of adjunctive therapy use (27.1%-96.4%), methods used (neuromuscular blockade, prone positioning, systemic steroids, pulmonary vasodilators, and extracorporeal support), and mortality (16.7%-73.3%). Center standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), calculated using baseline patient-level characteristics to derive expected mortality rate, ranged from 0.33 to 1.98. Of the treatment-level factors explored, only center adherence to early LPV was correlated with SMR. Interpretation Substantial center-to-center variability exists in ARDS management, suggesting that further opportunities for improving ARDS outcomes exist. Early adherence to LPV was associated with lower center mortality and may be a surrogate for overall quality of care processes. Future collaboration is needed to identify additional treatment-level factors influencing center-level outcomes. Trial Registry ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03021824; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov

Three COVID-19 vaccines are authorized or approved for use among adults in the United States (1,2). Two 2-dose mRNA vaccines, mRNA-1273 from Moderna and BNT162b2 from Pfizer-BioNTech, received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2020 for persons aged ≥18 years and aged ≥16 years, respectively. A 1-dose viral vector vaccine (Ad26.COV2 from Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) received EUA in February 2021 for persons aged ≥18 years (3). The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine received FDA approval for persons aged ≥16 years on August 23, 2021 (4). Current guidelines from FDA and CDC recommend vaccination of eligible persons with one of these three products, without preference for any specific vaccine (4,5). To assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) of these three products in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization, CDC and collaborators conducted a case-control analysis among 3,689 adults aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals across 18 states during March 11-August 15, 2021. An additional analysis compared serum antibody levels (anti-spike immunoglobulin G [IgG] and anti-receptor binding domain [RBD] IgG) to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, among 100 healthy volunteers enrolled at three hospitals 2-6 weeks after full vaccination with the Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, or Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. Patients with immunocompromising conditions were excluded. VE against COVID-19 hospitalizations was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 91%-95%) than for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%; 95% CI = 85%-91%) (p = 0.011); VE for both mRNA vaccines was higher than that for the Janssen vaccine (71%; 95% CI = 56%-81%) (all p

Purpose To measure the rate of recall of study participation and study attrition in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome(ARDS). Materials/Methods In this ancillary study of the Re-evaluation of Systemic Early neuromuscular blockade(ROSE) trial, we measured the rate of study participation recall 3 months following discharge and subsequent study attrition at 6 months. We compared patient and hospital characteristics, and long-term outcomes by recall. As surrogate decision-makers provided initial consent, we measured the rate of patient reconsent and its association with study recall. Results Of 487 patients evaluated, recall status was determined in 386(82.7%). Among these, 287(74.4%) patients recalled participation in the ROSE trial, while 99(25.6%) did not. There was no significant difference in 6-month attrition among patients who recalled study participation (9.1%) and those who did not (12.1%) (p = 0.38). Patient characteristics were similar between groups, except SOFA scores, ventilator-free days, and length of stay. 330(68%) were reconsented. Compared to those not reconsented, significantly more patients who were reconsented recalled study participation(78% vs. 66%;p = 0.01). Conclusions One in 4 ARDS survivors do not recall their participation in a clinical trial during hospitalization 3 months following hospital discharge, which did not influence 6-month attrition. However, more patients recall study participation if reconsent is obtained.

Globally, metabolic-asssociated fatty liver disease has become a significant health burden due to its complex pathogenesis, and there are no specific and effective therapeutic drugs to date. The onset and progression of metabolic-asssociated fatty liver disease is closely associated with improper dietary habits. The cornerstone to treat metabolic-asssociated fatty liver disease is weight loss through a well-balanced diet. This article summarizes and discusses the research progress at home and abroad in relationship to metabolic-asssociated fatty liver disease and dietary patterns such as the Mediterranean diet, the DASH diet, an energy-restricted balanced diet, a low fat diet, a low carbohydrate diet, a western diet, an animal food diet, a traditional diet, and others. In addition, it categorizes the effects of various dietary patterns on the prevention, treatment, or induction of several issues that need further metabolic-asssociated fatty liver disease research for subsequent reference.代谢相关脂肪性肝病已成为一种全球主要的健康负担，由于其复杂的发病机制，迄今仍未有特效治疗药物。饮食结构与代谢相关脂肪性肝病的发生与发展密切相关，通过均衡饮食实现减重是治疗代谢相关脂肪性肝病的基石。现将代谢相关脂肪性肝病与地中海饮食、得舒饮食、限能量平衡膳食、低脂、低碳水化合物饮食、西方饮食、动物性食物饮食、传统饮食及其他饮食模式关系的国内外研究进展加以总结讨论，梳理各饮食结构对代谢相关脂肪性肝病的防治或诱发作用，以及各饮食结构存在的、有待加以深入研究的若干问题，以期为后续研究提供参考。.

Objectives: To measure the impact of full versus partial ABCDE bundle implementation on specific cost centers and related resource utilization. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Two medical ICUs within Montefiore Health System (Bronx, NY). Patients: Four hundred and seventy-two mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the medical ICUs during a hospitalization which began and ended between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. Interventions: The full (A)wakening, (B)reathing, (C)oordination, (D)elirium Monitoring/Management and (E)arly Mobilization bundle was implemented in the intervention ICU while a portion of the bundle (A, B, and D components) was implemented in the comparison ICU. Measurements and Main Results: Relative to the comparison ICU, implementation of the entire bundle in the intervention ICU was associated with a 27.3% (95% CI: 9.9%, 41.3%; P = 0.004) decrease in total hospital laboratory costs and a 2,888.6% (95% CI: 77.9%, 50,113.2%; P = 0.018) increase in total hospital physical therapy costs. Cost of total hospital medications, diagnostic radiology and respiratory therapy were unchanged. Relative to the comparison ICU, total hospital resource use decreased in the intervention ICU (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], laboratory: 0.68 [0.54, 0.87], P = 0.002; diagnostic radiology: 0.75 [0.59, 0.96], P = 0.020). Conclusions: Full ABCDE bundle implementation resulted in a decrease in total hospital laboratory costs and total hospital laboratory and diagnostic resource utilization while leading to an increase in physical therapy costs.

Background Influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against a spectrum of severe disease, including critical illness and death, remains poorly characterized. Methods We conducted a test-negative study in an intensive care unit (ICU) network at 10 US hospitals to evaluate VE for preventing influenza-associated severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) during the 2019–2020 season, which was characterized by circulation of drifted A/H1N1 and B-lineage viruses. Cases were adults hospitalized in the ICU and a targeted number outside the ICU (to capture a spectrum of severity) with laboratory-confirmed, influenza-associated SARI. Test-negative controls were frequency-matched based on hospital, timing of admission, and care location (ICU vs non-ICU). Estimates were adjusted for age, comorbidities, and other confounders. Results Among 638 patients, the median (interquartile) age was 57 (44–68) years; 286 (44.8%) patients were treated in the ICU and 42 (6.6%) died during hospitalization. Forty-five percent of cases and 61% of controls were vaccinated, which resulted in an overall VE of 32% (95% CI: 2–53%), including 28% (−9% to 52%) against influenza A and 52% (13–74%) against influenza B. VE was higher in adults 18–49 years old (62%; 95% CI: 27–81%) than those aged 50–64 years (20%; −48% to 57%) and ≥65 years old (−3%; 95% CI: −97% to 46%) (P = .0789 for interaction). VE was significantly higher against influenza-associated death (80%; 95% CI: 4–96%) than nonfatal influenza illness. Conclusions During a season with drifted viruses, vaccination reduced severe influenza-associated illness among adults by 32%. VE was high among young adults.

Background Test-negative design studies for evaluating influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) enroll patients with acute respiratory infection. Enrollment typically occurs before influenza status is determined, resulting in over-enrollment of influenza-negative patients. With availability of rapid and accurate molecular clinical testing, influenza status could be ascertained before enrollment, thus improving study efficiency. We estimate potential biases in VE when using clinical testing. Methods We simulate data assuming 60% vaccinated, 25% of those vaccinated are influenza positive, and VE of 50%. We show the effect on VE in 5 scenarios. Results Vaccine effectiveness is affected only when clinical testing preferentially targets patients based on both vaccination and influenza status. Vaccine effectiveness is overestimated by 10% if nontesting occurs in 39% of vaccinated influenza-positive patients and 24% of others. VE is also overestimated by 10% if nontesting occurs in 8% of unvaccinated influenza-positive patients and 27% of others. Vaccine effectiveness is underestimated by 10% if nontesting occurs in 32% of unvaccinated influenza-negative patients and 18% of others. Conclusions Although differential clinical testing by vaccine receipt and influenza positivity may produce errors in estimated VE, bias in testing would have to be substantial and overall proportion of patients tested would have to be small to result in a meaningful difference in VE.

Rationale: How to provide advanced respiratory support for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) to maximize population-level survival while optimizing mechanical ventilator access is unknown. Objectives: To evaluate the use of high-flow nasal cannula for COVID-19 on population-level mortality and ventilator availability. Methods: We constructed dynamical (deterministic) simulation models of high-flow nasal cannula and mechanical ventilation use for COVID-19 in the United States. Model parameters were estimated through consensus based on published literature, local data, and experience. We had the following two outcomes: 1) cumulative number of deaths and 2) days without any available ventilators. We assessed the impact of various policies for the use of high-flow nasal cannula (with or without “early intubation”) versus a scenario in which high-flow nasal cannula was unavailable. Results: The policy associated with the fewest deaths and the least time without available ventilators combined the use of high-flow nasal cannula for patients not urgently needing ventilators with the use of early mechanical ventilation for these patients when at least 10% of ventilator supply was not in use. At the national level, this strategy resulted in 10,000–40,000 fewer deaths than if high-flow nasal cannula were not available. In addition, with moderate national ventilator capacity (30,000–45,000 ventilators), this strategy led to up to 25 (11.8%) fewer days without available ventilators. For a 250-bed hospital with 100 mechanical ventilators, the availability of 13, 20, or 33 high-flow nasal cannulas prevented 81, 102, and 130 deaths, respectively. Conclusions: The use of high-flow nasal cannula coupled with early mechanical ventilation when supply is sufficient results in fewer deaths and greater ventilator availability.

To compare the effectiveness of a primary covid-19 vaccine series plus booster doses with a primary series alone for the prevention of hospital admission with omicron related covid-19 in the United States.Multicenter observational case-control study with a test negative design.Hospitals in 18 US states.4760 adults admitted to one of 21 hospitals with acute respiratory symptoms between 26 December 2021 and 30 June 2022, a period when the omicron variant was dominant. Participants included 2385 (50.1%) patients with laboratory confirmed covid-19 (cases) and 2375 (49.9%) patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (controls).The main outcome was vaccine effectiveness against hospital admission with covid-19 for a primary series plus booster doses and a primary series alone by comparing the odds of being vaccinated with each of these regimens versus being unvaccinated among cases versus controls. Vaccine effectiveness analyses were stratified by immunosuppression status (immunocompetent, immunocompromised). The primary analysis evaluated all covid-19 vaccine types combined, and secondary analyses evaluated specific vaccine products.Overall, median age of participants was 64 years (interquartile range 52-75 years), 994 (20.8%) were immunocompromised, 85 (1.8%) were vaccinated with a primary series plus two boosters, 1367 (28.7%) with a primary series plus one booster, and 1875 (39.3%) with a primary series alone, and 1433 (30.1%) were unvaccinated. Among immunocompetent participants, vaccine effectiveness for prevention of hospital admission with omicron related covid-19 for a primary series plus two boosters was 63% (95% confidence interval 37% to 78%), a primary series plus one booster was 65% (58% to 71%), and for a primary series alone was 37% (25% to 47%) (P0.001 for the pooled boosted regimens compared with a primary series alone). Vaccine effectiveness was higher for a boosted regimen than for a primary series alone for both mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech): 73% (44% to 87%) for primary series plus two boosters, 64% (55% to 72%) for primary series plus one booster, and 36% (21% to 48%) for primary series alone (P0.001); mRNA-1273 (Moderna): 68% (17% to 88%) for primary series plus two boosters, 65% (55% to 73%) for primary series plus one booster, and 41% (25% to 54%) for primary series alone (P=0.001)). Among immunocompromised patients, vaccine effectiveness for a primary series plus one booster was 69% (31% to 86%) and for a primary series alone was 49% (30% to 63%) (P=0.04).During the first six months of 2022 in the US, booster doses of a covid-19 vaccine provided additional benefit beyond a primary vaccine series alone for preventing hospital admissions with omicron related covid-19.This article is a living test negative design study that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19.METHODS: In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978.FINDINGS: Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50-72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74-1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67-1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74-1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68-1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91-1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88-1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90.INTERPRETATION: Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Speed.

Purpose: Montefiore Medical Center (MMC) in the Bronx, New York, was subjected to an unprecedented surge of critically ill patients with COVID-19 disease during the initial outbreak of the pandemic in New York State in the spring of 2020. It is important to describe our experience in order to assist hospitals in other areas of the country that may soon be subjected to similar surges. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the expansion of critical care medicine services at Montefiore during the COVID-19 surge in terms of space, staff, stuff, and systems. In addition, we report on a debriefing session held with a multidisciplinary group of frontline CCM providers at Montefiore. Findings: The surge of critically ill patients from COVID-19 disease necessitated a tripling of critical care bed capacity at (MMC), with attendant increased needs for staffing, equipment, and systematic innovations to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Feedback from a multidisciplinary group of frontline providers revealed multiple opportunities for improvement for the next potential surge at MMC as well as guidance for other hospitals. Conclusions: Given increasing cases and burden of critical illness from COVID-19 across the US, engineering safe and effective expansions of critical care capacity will be crucial. We hope that our description of what worked and what did not at MMC will help guide other hospitals in their pandemic preparedness.

Most persons infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), develop virus-specific antibodies within several weeks, but antibody titers might decline over time. Understanding the timeline of antibody decline is important for interpreting SARS-CoV-2 serology results. Serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline health care personnel at 13 hospitals and tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 during April 3-June 19, 2020, and again approximately 60 days later to assess this timeline. The percentage of participants who experienced seroreversion, defined as an antibody signal-to-threshold ratio >1.0 at baseline and

The ORCHID (Outcomes Related to COVID-19 treated with Hydroxychloroquine among In-patients with symptomatic Disease) trial is a multicenter, blinded, randomized trial of hydroxychloroquine versus placebo for the treatment of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This document provides the rationale and background for the trial and highlights key design features. We discuss five novel challenges to the design and conduct of a large, multicenter, randomized trial during a pandemic, including 1) widespread, off-label use of the study drug before the availability of safety and efficacy data; 2) the need to adapt traditional procedures for documentation of informed consent during an infectious pandemic; 3) developing a flexible and robust Bayesian analysis incorporating significant uncertainty about the disease, outcomes, and treatment; 4) obtaining indistinguishable drug and placebo without delaying enrollment; and 5) rapidly obtaining administrative and regulatory approvals. Our goals in describing how the ORCHID trial progressed from study conception to enrollment of the first patient in 15 days are to inform the development of other high-quality, multicenter trials targeting COVID-19. We describe lessons learned to improve the efficiency of future clinical trials, particularly in the setting of pandemics. The ORCHID trial will provide high-quality, clinically relevant data on the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04332991).

Preventing, treating, and promoting recovery from critical illness due to pulmonary disease are foundational goals of the critical care community and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Decades of clinical research in acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute respiratory failure, pneumonia, and sepsis have yielded improvements in supportive care, which have translated into improved patient outcomes. Novel therapeutics have largely failed to translate from promising pre-clinical findings into improved patient outcomes in late-phase clinical trials. Recent advances in personalized medicine, "big data", causal inference using observational data, novel clinical trial designs, pre-clinical disease modeling, and understanding recovery from acute illness promise to transform the methods of pulmonary and critical care clinical research. To assess the current state, research priorities, and future directions for adult pulmonary and critical care research, the NHLBI assembled a multidisciplinary working group of investigators. This working group identified recommendations for future research, including: (1) focusing on understanding the clinical, physiological, and biological underpinnings of heterogeneity in syndromes, diseases, and treatment-response with the goal of developing targeted, personalized interventions; (2) optimizing pre-clinical models by incorporating comorbidities, co-interventions, and organ support; (3) developing and applying novel clinical trial designs; and (4) advancing mechanistic understanding of injury and recovery in order to develop and test interventions targeted at achieving long-term improvements in the lives of patients and families. Specific areas of research are highlighted as especially promising for making advances in pneumonia, acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Objectives The objectives of this study were to: 1) determine the association between vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 6 hours and first 24 hours after the onset of septic shock and 30-day in-hospital mortality; 2) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by fluid resuscitation volume; and 3) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by dosing titration pattern. Design Multicenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018. Vasopressor dosing intensity was defined as the total vasopressor dose infused across all vasopressors in norepinephrine equivalents. Setting Thirty-three hospital sites in the United States (n = 32) and Jordan (n = 1). Patients Consecutive adults requiring admission to the ICU with septic shock treated with greater than or equal to 1 vasopressor within 24 hours of shock onset. Interventions None. Measurements and main results Out of 1,639 patients screened, 616 were included. Norepinephrine (93%) was the most common vasopressor. Patients received a median of 3,400 mL (interquartile range, 1,851-5,338 mL) during the 24 hours after shock diagnosis. The median vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours of shock onset was 8.5 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents (3.4-18.1 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents). In the first 6 hours, increasing vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with increased odds ratio of 30-day in-hospital mortality, with the strength of association dependent on concomitant fluid administration. Over the entire 24 hour period, every 10 μg/min increase in vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.16-1.53), and this association did not vary with the amount of fluid administration. Compared to an early high/late low vasopressor dosing strategy, an early low/late high or sustained high vasopressor dosing strategy was associated with higher mortality. Conclusions Increasing vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours after septic shock was associated with increased mortality. This association varied with the amount of early fluid administration and the timing of vasopressor titration.

Background The recent pandemic highlights the essential nature of optimizing the use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in complex critical care settings. This review of reviews maps evidence-based practices (EBPs) that are associated with better outcomes among adult patients with acute respiratory failure or ARDS on the continuum of care, from intubation to liberation. Research Question What EPBs are recommended to reduce the duration of IMV and mortality rate among patients with acute respiratory failure/ARDS? Study Design and Methods We identified an initial set of reports that links EBPs to mortality rates and/or duration of IMV. We conducted a review of reviews, focusing on preappraised guidelines, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews. We searched Scopus, CINAHL, and PubMed from January 2016 to January 2019 for additional evidence that has not yet been incorporated into current guidelines. Results Our initial search produced 61 publications that contained 42 EBPs. We excluded 42 manuscripts during the data extraction process, primarily because they were not associated with improved patient outcomes. The remaining 19 preappraised guidelines, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews met our full inclusion criteria and spanned the continuum of IMV care from intubation to liberation. These contained 20 EBPs, a majority of which were supported with moderate levels of evidence. Of these, six EBPs focused on intubation and escalation of care, such as ventilator management and synchrony; ten EBPs reduced complications associated with IMV, which included spontaneous awakening and breathing trials and early mobility protocols; and four EBPs promoted timely extubation and postextubation recovery. Interpretation This review describes EBPs that are associated with fewer ventilator days and/or lower mortality rates among patients who received IMV for acute respiratory failure/ARDS. Many of these EBPs are connected across the care continuum, which indicates the need to promote and assess effective implementation jointly, rather than individually.

Purpose: Racial and ethnic minority patients receive poorer quality end-of-life (EoL) care compared with white patients. Differences in quality of communication (QOC) with clinicians may contribute to these disparities. We measured differences in satisfaction with communication in the intensive care unit (ICU) by race and ethnicity. Materials and Methods: This is a cross-sectional survey of family members of patients in ICUs of an academic medical center serving a diverse urban population using The Family Satisfaction with the ICU (FS-ICU) and QOC scales. Results: One hundred surveys were completed (18.8% white, non-Hispanic; 34.4% black, non-Hispanic; 31.3% Hispanic; 15.6% other race/ethnicity). Mean FS-ICU score was 84.2 (standard deviation [SD] 20.5) for white patients, 83.3 (SD 16.2) for black patients, 82.7 (SD 17.8) for Hispanic or Latino patients, and 80.9 (SD 18.8) for patients with other race/ethnicity (Kruskal-Wallis, P = .92). Differences remained insignificant when controlling for patient and respondent characteristics. The QOC scale was not scored due to nonresponse levels on questions about EoL communication. Conclusions: Uniformly high ratings may have been influenced by avoidance of EoL discussion. This study is inconclusive regarding whether QOC influences disparities in EoL care since quality of EoL communication was not captured.

We sought to assess whether persistent COVID-19 symptoms beyond 6 months (Long-COVID) among patients with mild COVID-19 is associated with poorer health status, quality of life, and psychological distress.This was a multicenter prospective cohort study that included adult outpatients with acute COVID-19 from eight sites during 2-week sampling periods from April 1 and July 28, 2020. Participants were contacted 6-11 months after their first positive SARS-CoV-2 to complete a survey, which collected information on the severity of eight COVID-19 symptoms using a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not present) to 3 (severe) at 1 month before COVID-19 (pre-illness) and at follow-up; the difference for each was calculated as an attributable persistent symptom severity score. A total attributable persistent COVID-19 symptom burden score was calculated by summing the attributable persistent severity scores for all eight symptoms. Outcomes measured at long-term follow-up comprised overall health status (EuroQol visual analogue scale), quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire-4). The association between the total attributable persistent COVID-19 burden score and each outcome was analyzed using multivariable proportional odds regression.Of the 2092 outpatients with COVID-19, 436 (21%) responded to the survey. The median (IQR) attributable persistent COVID-19 symptom burden score was 2 (0, 4); higher scores were associated with lower overall health status (aOR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.57-0.69), lower quality of life (aOR: 0.65; 95%CI: 0.59-0.72), and higher psychological distress (aOR: 1.40; 95%CI, 1.28-1.54) after adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, education, and income.In participants with mild acute COVID-19, the burden of persistent symptoms was significantly associated with poorer long-term health status, poorer quality of life, and psychological distress.

Mortality historically has been the primary outcome of choice for acute and critical care clinical trials. However, undue reliance on mortality can limit the scope of trials that can be performed. Large sample sizes are usually needed for trials powered for a mortality outcome, and focusing solely on mortality fails to recognize the importance that reducing morbidity can have on patients' lives. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for rapid, efficient trials to rigorously evaluate new therapies for hospitalized patients with acute lung injury. Oxygen-free days (OFDs) is a novel outcome for clinical trials that is a composite of mortality and duration of new supplemental oxygen use. It is designed to characterize recovery from acute lung injury in populations with a high prevalence of new hypoxemia and supplemental oxygen use. In these populations, OFDs captures two patient-centered consequences of acute lung injury: mortality and hypoxemic lung dysfunction. Power to detect differences in OFDs typically is greater than that for other clinical trial outcomes, such as mortality and ventilator-free days. OFDs is the primary outcome for the Fourth Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV-4) Host Tissue platform, which evaluates novel therapies targeting the host response to COVID-19 among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and new hypoxemia. This article outlines the rationale for use of OFDs as an outcome for clinical trials, proposes a standardized method for defining and analyzing OFDs, and provides a framework for sample size calculations using the OFD outcome.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were authorized in the United States in December 2020. Although vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild infection declines markedly after several months, limited understanding exists on the long-term durability of protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization.Case control analysis of adults (≥18 years) hospitalized at 21 hospitals in 18 states March 11 - December 15, 2021, including COVID-19 case patients and RT-PCR-negative controls. We included adults who were unvaccinated or vaccinated with two doses of a mRNA vaccine before the date of illness onset. VE over time was assessed using logistic regression comparing odds of vaccination in cases versus controls, adjusting for confounders. Models included dichotomous time (180 vs ≥180 days since dose two) and continuous time modeled using restricted cubic splines.10,078 patients were included, 4906 cases (23% vaccinated) and 5172 controls (62% vaccinated). Median age was 60 years (IQR 46-70), 56% were non-Hispanic White, and 81% had ≥1 medical condition. Among immunocompetent adults, VE180 days was 90% (95%CI: 88-91) vs 82% (95%CI: 79-85) at ≥180 days (p 0.001). VE declined for Pfizer-BioNTech (88% to 79%, p 0.001) and Moderna (93% to 87%, p 0.001) products, for younger adults (18-64 years) [91% to 87%, p = 0.005], and for adults ≥65 years of age (87% to 78%, p 0.001). In models using restricted cubic splines, similar changes were observed.In a period largely pre-dating Omicron variant circulation, effectiveness of two mRNA doses against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was largely sustained through 9 months.